MediaWiki talk:Recentchangestext

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The content of MediaWiki:Recentchangestext is what appears at the top of Special:Recentchanges (which is what you get if you click the Recent changes link on the quick bar).

This talk page is for discussing what might go on MediaWiki:Recentchangestext. Note: The MediaWiki:Recentchangestext page itself is protected against edits by users other than admins to prevent vandalism, so please add suggestions here.

For an explanation of Special:Recentchanges, see m:Help:Recent changes.


Contents

[edit] Live links

Please remove the live links from the requests section. Georgia guy 15:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update request

Please add the following two lines at the end:

== __NOEDITSECTION__ ==
== __NOTOC__ ==

This creates two invisible section headers, the 1st doesn't work as link, the 2nd allows to jump over the spamintro directly to the start of the content at Special:Recentchanges#_2. At least it works that way on ordinary pages, with a special page it might not work as expected. -- Omniplex 23:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, added them in. Ashibaka tock 06:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't work. Clicking on Special:Recentchanges#_2 still takes me to the top of the page, but clicking on Special:Recentchanges#nsselect scrolls it down a bit. If you want to ignore the links at the top, I'd suggest adding #recentchangestext { display:none; } to your monobook.css. — Jul. 7, '06 [13:44] <freak|talk>
Funny, it worked for me last night. Alright, FoN's solution is better. Ashibaka tock 19:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-bolshevism

Could one of Wikipedia's 960 administrators please remove the Neo-Bolshevism link from the Recent Changes page? Currently, it's listed under the "Requests" section. Thank you, -- Wikitravel Sapphire 06:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you do not have to be an admin to remove this. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
How do you remove it as a lay person? I was under the impression that one had to edit the MediaWiki:Recentchangestext template? Thanks. - Wikitravel Sapphire
Only administrators may edit the MediaWiki namespace, which includes the RC header. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Live links

Why do people leave live links on the Requests row of this template rather than replacing them immediately?? Georgia guy 13:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The second time today this happened has happened. I strongly support that any Wikipedian who creates a new article should search any set of requests to see if any link there. Georgia guy 21:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
This page is in the MediaWiki namespace, meaning that only adminstrators can edit, and hence update, the requests links. It's a manual process, so if no one happens to be looking at the RC header, it won't get updated for a while. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Will there be a more efficient way of doing this, for example, creating a bot to update it? --Siva1979Talk to me 20:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AIDS in Asia

Why does "AIDS in Asia" stay on the Requests row despite being a live link?? Georgia guy 22:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

See above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iran POV

Ok, I've been a Wikipedia user for a year now. Sometimes there are things that are boarderline in terms of what I think might be POV and maybe aren't. Can someone tell me if this is POV in their opinion? Here is the dif [1]. Thanks for your help! Davidpdx 02:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, let me state that NPOVs and POVs are not exclusively different from each other. At this point, I have to agree with you that there are in fact many cases where the difference between these two are difficult to point out. As for the above mentioned example, I feel that it is a POV statement because there is no definite evidence yet that Iran supports terrorism. Here, it is also difficult to define the word terrorism because Iran's point of view in this subject matter will be totally different from the Western view. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How many edits per minute?

Does anyone know how many edits per minute are being made to Wikipedia these days? RC patrol seems to be getting more and more traffic... --HappyCamper 03:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It depends. If I am not wrong, there are about 30 to 100 edits made per minute each day. Of course, this rate varies as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh I had to go back over 250 edits to find my edits that were made under 30 seconds ago. \frac{250}{30 \mbox{seconds}}=8 \mbox{Hz.}8Hz. * 60seconds / min. = 500edits / min.. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 05:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Live links

There are now no fewer than 3 live links in the requests row. Why do people leave the requests row with live links?? Georgia guy 19:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps, most of them are not aware of pruning the request page. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes in last $2 days

Ok so this isn't technically the correct place to discuss this, but I'll be damned if I can find a better one. The links to filter recent changes by days seem to be utterly useless on Wikipedia due to the sheer volume of edits. If I'm right it shoud be possible to remove them and reduce clutter by editing MediaWiki:Rclinks and MediaWiki:Rcnote. Any opposition? the wub "?!" 15:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Any support? Any comments at all? Ah the hell with it, I'll just be bold and change them. the wub "?!" 14:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I feel it would have been a good idea if the opinions of other users were consulted first about this. Anyway, on a personal note, I do not oppose this change. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
They are slightly useful; for instance, imagine filtering for MediaWiki talk edits by anons. Still, I don't think they're worth any slight use they might have. --ais523 13:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New suggestion

I have a suggestion to make about the Request link in the recent change page. Currently, five requested articles are being posted here. I suggest in increasing the number to ten. Each of these requested articles could represent the ten sub-sections within the requested article page. This would provide a greater range of topics for users of different interests. Red-linked articles would also be created at a slightly faster rate. Any comments or counter-arguments against this idea would be greatly appreciated. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, how long will the Request link emphasis the creation of articles on towns and cities with over 100 000 people? --Siva1979Talk to me 03:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Live links

I have said a few times before that people keep leaving live links on the Requests row. Georgia guy 14:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requests

A long time ago, we used to alternate weekly between Requested Articles and Stubs for expansion on the Recent Changes page. This was when Wikipedia had fewer than 50,000 articles, and there was a push to get as many articles as possible. Now that we have almost 1.5 million articles, circumstances have changed considerably, and we have several hundred thousand important articles that are still stubs. In fact, these stubs are far more important than many of the requested articles. I therefore suggest that we go back to the old system of alternating between new articles and stubs, thereby drawing people's attention to articles that need expansion. Danny 00:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea at all; it can give us coverage in areas that are severely lacking. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, though I dout the effect will be that large, its an overdue step in the right direction.Voice-of-All 00:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Seems worth a try to me, there are a lot of stubs out there... ++Lar: t/c 00:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've made the first stab at it: [2]. I spent a little while trying to pick worthy articles that are centrally important and neglected. I may have a bias some way or other, of course, so feel free to fiddle with it or expand the queue. Dmcdevit·t 08:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I see with this is logistics. While I like the idea in theory, I'm just doubtful that it will prove to be effective. For instance, when do we remove the stubs? Unlike uncreated articles, there's no "color-change", per se, to inform us that the job has been done. Also, when does a stub become a "not-stubbed" article? When do we change the stub-improvement requests? Also, will people not act because of the blue link on the header? It's my view that people only took action because of the requested red links - improving a stub is more difficult and less rewarding. Will the emphasis on the stubs help? Also, when will we alternate between requests and stubs? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, only time will tell about the effectiveness of this method. However, I disagree with your statement which states that improving a stub ... is less rewarding. Improving an article is a very rewarding process which brings about much satisfaction to most editors. Moreover, I would like to propose that we alternat between requests and stubs every month or for two weeks. For more information on stubs please view this page. It might give you a better understanding on when a stub article is no longer a stub. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I know what a stub is. It's just that there's no exact guideline for when a stub becomes a "non-stub" article, and vice versa. Also, let me clarify what I mean by "less rewarding": I don't mean that doing the expanding is less rewarding; I simply meant that the lack of apparent activity on the RC header will take away emphasis on the requests. With requested articles, because an article would be created in a few days (sometimes sooner), the header did not become "stale". Without cycling, the requests for improvements will become stale and become ineffective. For example, take a look at the current requests: while I recognize it's only been three or four days, none of the articles have had any significant changes since the requests have gone up, and a few have not even been edited. I agree with you, though, that we should wait and see a bit more. My thought is to let these requests stand until the completion of a week from when they were posted (the 17th), and then change back to requests while we evaluate if the change was effective. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colour?

Any chance of having a bit of colour? Possibly colours similar to the main page. Just a suggestion.--Andeh 15:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion

What's the deal with the "Opinion" link to Wikipedia:Danny's contest under "Challenges"? It seems very suspect to me that an encyclopedia would make an opinion page so prominent. Also, where's the discussion or statement about why this page was edited? I have opinions too can I make an op-ed and add it to the list? (That was sarcasm) -- Sapphire 17:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] speedy deletion of db-web and db-spam

Radiant! added this announcement to Recentchangestext[3] : "Speedy deletion of {{db-web}} and {{db-spam}}."

I first noticed it when I saw this in the Announcements section at the top of Recentchanges (yes, I actually use Recentchanges instead of an automated tool):

Danny's third contest - Speedy deletion of {{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}}

Template:/doc and {{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}} Template:/doc

I tried changing the syntax to avoid the use of {{tl}}, to see if that would help, but it made things even worse.

I'm all in favor of having this info in the recent changes header, but until we get the syntax right, it's more harmful than helpful. I am clearly in over my head - can some WikiSyntaxWizard lend a hand? FreplySpang 14:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I think I've fixed it now. >Radiant< 14:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me, thanks! FreplySpang 15:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the new CSD announcements; the RC header shouldn't be a news ticker (only for extremely significant announcements), and they've been on for a while now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Projects

Wikiversity Someone should add it. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Done; thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Challenges update

The Challanges needs to be updated (Abdelaziz Bouteflika replaced with 4chan in the sources one). I like this idea. 66.81.19.59 17:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update intro link

Please change the "Welcome, newcomers" link to read/point at [[Wikipedia:Introduction|Introduction]]. Thanks :) --Quiddity 05:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

--Andeh 14:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. NCurse work 16:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Frequency of sexual intercourse" request

I keep seeing it up there, and the few times it's been blue it has been nonsense and speedied[4] as such. Where does it come from? --Jamoche 04:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why does this page even exist?

I don't understand why this page exists because it's basically useless. I count that about 200 changes are made to wikipedia *per minute*. This means that any given change will drop out of even the largest "500 last changes" list in a couple of minutes. I just made a small addition to one page, and out of curiosity clicked on "recent changes" soon after committing the change. There was at most one minute (probably less) between my submission and loading the recent changes page. My change was in place 246 in the list. (In other words, 245 changes had been made to wikipedia between my submission and me loading the recent changes page less than a minute after.) This just begs the question why this page even exists. It's of absolutely no use. Watchlists are much more useful. Wopr 16:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Recentchanges exists for several reasons: first, without such a feature, there would be no way to evaluate and watch the real-time changes in Wikipedia pages. This is crucual for vandalism-fighting - without recentchanges, vandalism or other such edits would not be spotted unless they appeared in someone's watchlist, or if that person stumbled onto the article's history. Recentchanges also allows the changes to be filtered by category: i.e. namespace, minor edits, bot edits, etc. This can also be extremely useful in vandalism fighting, as well as watching all the real-time changes. I hope this answers your questions - watchlists are designed to be the page where you can keep track of the pages you wish to monitor, not recentchanges; however, RC still serves a critical purpose. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, this page is included by default on the software, MediaWiki. It may be useless to some in the English Wikipedia, due to volume, but there are other sister projects, as well as external wikis, that find it extremely useful for the reasons Flcelloguy stated above. Also, disabling it really wouldn't accomplish anything, and would hurt the portion of users that still use it, so there's no reason to get rid of it, actually. Titoxd(?!?) 22:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I saw this message by looking through Recent Changes for MediaWiki talk edits. Its main use is for vandalfighting; load up Recent Changes and check the diffs near the top to see if they're vandalism (possibly using a tool to make it faster). See Wikipedia:RC Patrol for more information about vandal-fighting using Recent Changes. --ais523 11:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
This page was even more useful back when the English language edition of Wikipedia had only a few edits per minute - most contributors used to keep a close eye on it, back then. Warofdreams talk 02:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RSS feed forbidden

I'm writing a PHP script that loads and parses the Recent Changes rss feed, but when I try to load the rss feed from a remote server, I get a 403 Forbidden error. Is there any reason why this feed would allow access to browsers, but not to scripts on remote sites?

See WP:VP/T#Wikipedia_blocking_PHP.3F. You need a custom user-agent, but make sure what you are doing is reasonable in terms of server load etc.--Commander Keane 07:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links to other projects

Could we delete the links to other projects. I think that they are not needed.

--Meno25 05:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/c/MediaWiki_talk%7ERecentchangestext_05a5.html"